Bernard Carpenter v. Central Vermont Medical Center

Age Discrimination and Retalitation - Fair Employment and Practices Act - Plaintiff was hired by Central Vermont Hospital in 1984. He
worked as a custodian for ten years, eventually moving to the
Woodridge Nursing Home, operated by defendant Central Vermont
Medical Center (CVMC). Plaintiff received favorable performance
evaluations for the majority of his time with CVMC. In 1994, he
was fifty-eight years old. In February 1994, the nursing home
created a new position for a lead housekeeper, involving many of
plaintiff's duties, as well as some new responsibilities. Two
individuals applied for the position, plaintiff and Mike Tanner,
a twenty-three-year-old employee who had been a housekeeper for
three months. Plaintiff and Tanner were both interviewed, and
Tanner was selected for the job.

In spring 1995, the nursing home decided to restructure the
duties of some of its staff, including plaintiff. Carpenter was
asked to add to his duties of dust mopping, vacuuming, stripping,
and waxing floors, the tasks of wet mopping, dusting lights and
furniture, cleaning patient rooms, and changing dirty linens. As
a result of throat cancer and radiation treatments for it,
plaintiff experienced heightened sensitivity to some cleaning
products and to human waste. Upon being told of the
reorganization plan, plaintiff refused to do the new duties. He
took a month's vacation and returned, but was still unwilling to
perform tasks such as cleaning patient rooms. His job was
terminated by CVMC at that time.

Plaintiff filed suit for age discrimination and retaliation
under Vermont's Fair Employment Practices Act (FEPA). The
complaint did not contain a demand for a jury trial, nor was one
filed within the time limits of V.R.C.P. 38. Plaintiff tried
repeatedly to undo this mistake by adding new legal theories to
his case. On February 27, 1997, plaintiff filed a motion to amend
his complaint to add a federal age discrimination claim and
obtain a jury trial. The trial court denied these motions.
Plaintiff next moved to amend his complaint to add a claim of
disability discrimination under FEPA and to demand a jury trial.
The court denied both motions. Plaintiff moved for the third time
for a jury trial on March 8, 1998, and this motion, too, was
denied.

Defendant's verdict.

Unknown

Unknown

Affirmed in part and reversed in part by the Supreme Court of Vermont. See: ___ Vt. ___ (11-9-1999)___ A.2d ___. Note: The above date reflects the appellate court decision date, not the original trial date. Reported by kkm.